The above question was raised at a round table which was organized by the Razumkov Center in Kyiv on October 24, 2003 with support from the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s representation in Ukraine.

The round table drew more than 100 representatives from the ruling political elite (MPs, staffers with the Presidential Administration, the National Security and Defense Council, ministries and other government agencies) as well as leaders of political parties, authoritative experts, political scientists, journalists, and ambassadors of foreign countries.

The subject of discussion was the special issue (#9, 2003) of the Razumkov Center’s journal National Security and Defence, dedicated to the role and place of the political elite in establishing Ukrainian statehood and to the hopes Ukrainians pin on the political elite one year ahead of presidential elections.

Thanks to support from the Vidrodzhennya [Revival] international foundation, the materials published in the journal are now available to all readers of The ZN.

We know that The ZN is basically read by those who belong to the Ukrainian elite: creative, scientific, engineering, business, administrative, religious, and of course, political. They are genuinely concerned about the state of affairs in this country, and they need information on the topical issues.

These readers are deeply worried about the problems and difficulties that are hampering the progress of the Ukrainian nation. So the headline question naturally ought to concern them, as much as the Razumkov Center experts and the participants at the round table.

Unfortunately, 12 years after independence Ukraine is still in a quandary. Ukrainian society still has no consensus as to its strategic guidelines. Its fundamental goals and values have not been defined. These factors place serious obstacles to the elevation of this nation to a new qualitative level.

The political and socioeconomic realities are in striking contrast to the declarations. The stratification between the richest and the poorest citizens is reaching the level typical of corrupt dictatorial regimes. Constitutional democratic procedures like elections and referenda are becoming the means of legitimating results needed by the authorities. The society, mostly the younger generation, suffer from moral degradation and devaluation.

The lion’s share of the responsibility for such a state of affairs rests on this country’s political elite. Having all the necessary instruments of power in hand, it has proven to be incapable in terms of its public functions. What has got in its way? Are there any prerequisites for this formally established political elite to be accepted by this nation as its guide in the 21^{st century?}

These questions are becoming especially topical as the election race is about to start. It largely depends on the way the election campaign proceeds and on its outcome whether Ukraine will be able to join the community of its Central and East-European neighbors, to really integrate into Europe, or remain among the underdeveloped nations with an “administratively controlled democracy”.

The prevailing public attitude to the political elite is negative: according to the Razumkov Center’s latest sociological survey, 54% of Ukrainians are negatively disposed to it, and only 6% - positively.

At the same time, the 2004 presidential election campaign creates certain opportunities for the renewal of the political elite. The election is going to be a watershed determining Ukraine’s future for the next 10-15 years.

It is important to set the right tone and mood of the pre-election debates: to discuss strategies and programs rather than the candidates’ personal merits or demerits.

The Center hopes that its materials will give a deeper insight into the problem of the readiness of Ukraine’s political elite to meet the challenges of the current period, to ensure that they will stimulate efforts to bridge the gap between the political elite and the rest of society.